The Argument Is 0ver

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:09:09 -0700

To: sgpm@sisqtel.net

From: fra@ctosonline.org

COPY OF AN EXCHANGE, FYI. Mostly trash but often blowing in the wind.

Your Imminence. Truly He is risen. I hate to bother you with this stuff again but it comes up and I always want to be able to answer it. X got all this it from Y who's a loud mouth and behind a lot of the stuff I hear. Sorry again. It's made its way around.

***   ***   ***

I saw the Saint Gregory Palmas' site and it doesn't answer the questions. They can't. We consider Kyprianos and his bishops heretics because of what we have said and they can't answer:

Kyprianos was deposed by the State Church of Greece for reasons that have never been made public and which made his spiritual father Elder Philtheos split from him and both Kyprianos and Chrysostomos of Etna were deposed by the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom II of Athens, the only canonical synod of the old calendar in Greece. Monk Kyprianos was reduced to a monk for heresy and ecumenism and changing his church views for political reasons, and Mr. Chrysostomos was deposed for being made a bishop even though he was  married and for claiming college degrees that are bogus. They were tried and convicted when they refused to appear before the Spiritual Court of the Most Holy Synod.

The resistors synod in Bulgaria  is also run by a married bishop who was deposed.

Auxentios of Fotikis became Orthodox without being baptized and is said tohave a criminal background.

Ambrose of Mathone is a self-admitted Jew and is also known to be without an orthodoxbaptism..

SO THE ARGUMENT'S OVER. If ou belong to the socalled resistors synod then you're also a heretic and your bishops are either uncanonical and not Orthodox or are Jews.

***   ***   ***

Dear X,

Christ is Risen!

God bless you.

Bishop Auxentios asked me to handle this matter as I sought fit, after it was passed on to him by Archbishop Chrysostomos. I will answer harshly but keeping in mind that this is all the product of disturbed and sick persons who are in a certain way pumped up by controversy at the fringes of the Church. Since we are marginalized by the ecumenists and modernists, we are there for these ill people to see and to attack. This is an extremely sad thing because they succeed with their loudness in drowning out what we aim at.

First you should point out to your friend that the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery does not have a website, which explains why his correspondent could not find answers to the "questions" to which he refers. The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies has a website, but it is dedicated to our scholarly work and publications.

This latest nonsense has made its way around the Orthodox world for years. It contains what are in fact criminally libelous accusations if the cowards who are spreading them will simply put them in print and attach their names.

For the umpteenth time:

- Metropolitan Cyprian was a highly respected clergyman in the New Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece. The monastic community that he headed was considered exemplary. Out of conscience, he separated from the Hierarchy of that Church on account of its ecumenical activities, innovation, and what he saw as its deviations from Orthodox standards. He did so quietly, politely, and without condemning his former Hierarchs personally. He was received into the Old Calendar movement as a clergyman. He has also held to the very same ecclesiological confession since that time, despite the vagaries of the extremist old Calendarists, who came to deny Grace in the New Calendar Church of Greece and who have separated into factions and warring groups.

- Metropolitan Cyprian entered into the Old Calendar movement with the blessing of his Elder, the Blessed and renowned Elder Philotheos (Zervakos), who praised him in writing for his courageous move. No private charges were ever made against Metropolitan Cyprian, who was simply accused of "Old Calendarism" by the State Church of Greece when he left. Father Philotheos made it clear that any act of administrative revenge against Metropolitan Cyprian had no meaning and that, in accusing him of Old Calendarism, they would likewise have to accuse all of the Fathers of the Church who defended the Church Calendar.

- Neither Metropolitan Cyprian nor Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna ever belonged to the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens, whose Synod was formed in 1985. Nor has Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, who was a widower and university professor before becoming a monk, ever met Archbishop Chrysostomos II. Moreover, neither was ever summoned to any spiritual court to answer absurdly stupid charges from a Synod of Bishops to which neither, as I said, ever belonged and which has absolutely no authority to do so and who jeopardize their own credibility by claiming such authority. By the way, they also claim to have authority over all of Orthodoxy and all of the Orthodox Patriarchates, whom they have proclaimed to be outside the Church and without Grace! Incomprehensible.

_ Bishop Photii of Bulgaria was also married and an assistant professor at the University of Sofia, before becoming a monk, as have been many Orthodox hierarchs, including the late Patriarch Alexey of Moscow, whose wife attended his funeral. His Eminence, a superb scholar and a man of incredible scholarly and personal repute, was formed by the spiritual children of St. Seraphim of Sofia, Archimandrites Seraphim and Sergius (also both professors at the University of Sofia) and by the late Abbess Seraphima (the former Princess Olga of the Protection Convent in Sofia.

- Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, a convert to Orthodoxy and a former student at Princeton University of both Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna (who was teaching there while finishing his doctoral degree) and the late Father Georges Florovsky (who taught in the department of religion at Princeton), was baptized in Astoria, NY, at the Cathedral of St. Markella by the well-known Bishop Petros of Astoria and his brother, Archimandrite Niphon. At the time, Bishop Petros adhered to the very same ecclesiology as the Holy Synod in Resistance, though in 1985, having been independent for a number of years, he joined the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.

- Bishop Ambrose of Methone, whose father was a Scotsman and whose mother was indeed Jewish (though not a practicing Jew), comes from a very prominent and distinguished British family. He was baptized when he converted to the Orthodox Church.

You have heard the lies, now you have read the truth as we have made it known over and over. If my own retelling of the truth in the face of unrelenting lies seems to have a tone of impatience, my impatience is, quite frankly, simply an expression of my astonishment that liars are so persistent even when they are caught lying, and that those producing this nonsense are so consistently silly.

Those who have no real defense for their beliefs and simply refuse to admit that we are fully Orthodox in ours should simply remain quiet. Hitler was wrong in thinking that if you tell a lie long enough that people will believe it. If you tell a lie long enough, and especially when the truth has been told over and over in answer to your lies, people will in fact eventually conclude that you are quite simply a liar.

I personally see jealousy of our Synod of our Bishops behind a lot of what is said by these people who somehow get your attention. You should give them my statement and ignore them. You should also pray for them. They are sick.

There Is None That Watcheth Out For My Soul

This essay by Archbishop Chrysostomos can help the super-correct to understand us and helps to explain the Royal Path.

Evlogeite. As usual, externally compelling and intelligent, and not without some valid points (albeit validity in a typically curious and questionable context). From under the covers of theology and history, I must point out that there peep the following:

1) I have heard this refrain too often: "How dare the Church act without doing what I want. It must do so because it is motivated to reject the Royal Priesthood." Unfortunately, the idea of universalism in the priesthood deteriorates into Protestant-like chaos, when abused. It is as dangerous as it is essential and important. When Father Florovsky was asked about his claim that the people could even remove a Bishop, for example, he quickly said: "Only in times of intense piety and not without the final approval of the Church." This is a very important rejoinder.

2) World Orthodoxy is heretical because it is "clear" to the writer. He has no need for a Synod to declare this. Had such views prevailed in the Oecumenical Synods, the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as extreme economy in some cases, would have impeded the unity that the Fathers of these Synods, guided by the Holy Spirit, sought to restore.

3) The claim is made that ecumenism is a heresy and is a hundred years old. Thus we do not need the judgment of the Church against it. This is a dangerous view, and especially since ecumenism, which is in fact older than that, was nonetheless not always as deviant as it is today. In its virulent form, it is still developing. We should not look at it as monolithic thing, even in opposing it.

As well, religious toleration is not a heresy. Too many of these firebrands, as demonstrated even more lucidly by what they say in private, lack tolerance and love and have confused ecclesiological opposition to religious syncretism with bigotry and self-elevation. As one woman told me recently, "Orthodoxy began its decline when the Emperor of Byzantium whom you criticize burned the last heretic in the Orthodox East. Our fires should be ready." (This is a reference to Alexios I Comnenos, the Byzantine Emperor who burned Basil the Physician, the Bogomil heretic, around 1118, if I recall correctly. This was one of only four or five instances of violence against heretics in Byzantium, which is something that St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers flatly condemn. It is vile transgression of the teachings of Christ.)

This is not an "orthodoxy" in which I believe.

4) We are considered heretics since our ecclesiology is never honestly presented and is reduced to simplistic ideas such as "sick" and "healthy" Churches, without providing our larger Patristic context. We are accused of giving the Mysteries to New Calendarists (which is not our policy), whom we consider to have valid Mysteries and Grace, by those who in fact give the Mysteries to New Calendarists, whom they consider to lack Grace! Nor do these people ever present a justification for their "judgments without synodal authority" from a Patristic standpoint. If they cite the Fathers, they do so by ignoring historical context and with a theological naivete covered by the fact that they can cite something. This is not thinking discourse.

5) Did St. Mark of Ephesus, in his day, act as though he constituted a synod and unilaterally condemn the unionists as heretics without Grace, or did he wall himself off and resist the unionists with the aim of restoring unity? And did he not do just that? The answer from history is quite clear. Moreover, he was dealing in the fifteenth century with a unionist illness that dated back to the thirteenth century.

6) Sectarian thinking is ultimately not compatible with order and with patience and trust in the Church. Ad hoc lay committees do not have the approbation of the Church. The Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must act in a synod to adjudicate matters in the end. They constitute the authority of the Church.

That there are false synods and true ones has never impeded us from waiting for God's action. We have the right to protest, to cut ourselves off temporarily, and to organize a temporary ecclesiastical structure; however, we do not have the right to assume we that WE are the whole Church, whether in the name of the Royal Priesthood or some tiny group of people with putative "universal jurisdiction."

Our egos have to suffer, we must act humbly, and we must not make of a short time, in the scheme of things ecclesiastical, an irreversible ill in the Church and create an "Orthodoxy" of our liking and according to an authority that we do not have, whether as laymen or Churchmen.

And let me ask where, in any of this, one finds love for those in error and an expressed desire to restore them? This is all talk about "those who are correct" at the cost of those who are ill, whom these same super-correct radicals disdain. What is missing here is Christianity.

If I am in heresy for writing any of this, so, then, must be many of the great Fathers of the Church. Ego and the desire for power do not trump the power of the Church, the primacy of love, and God, however. So, I am not a heretic.

Least Among Your Brothers,

+ AC

Recent Articles on R0C0R Refugees Blog

A behind-the-scenes look at the writing of the Fr. Seraphim's 1976 article, "The Royal Path: True 0rthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy"
"Inside View of The Royal Path
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/inside-view-royal-path.html


This article gives an example of the Royal Path in action.
"How To Regard Piety Found In MP"
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-regard-piety-found-in-mp.html

SIR Statement of Doctrine

Abstracts of Metropolitan Cyprian Oroposskogo
Daily Courier
daily-courier.livejournal.com
• Nov. 6th, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Definition of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in 1974:

Chairman of the Cathedral of St. Filaret New York 

"As for the question regarding the presence or absence of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the Church novostilnoy, Pravoslalvnaya Russian Church Outside of Russia does not consider himself or any other local Church has the power to make the final decision 
as the final solution to this problem belongs to a specially convened Ecumenical Council " 



Message from the Council of Bishops of ROCOR from 3 / 16 May 1990 
Chairman of Metropolitan Cathedral. Vitaly (Ustinov):


"We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those in which the priest believes fervently and sincerely pray,   Being not only a minister of religion, but a good shepherd who loves his sheep, by faith beginning, served in the saving grace of the Sacraments."


Resolution of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR 3 / 16 August 1994 
President of the Synod of Met. Vitaly (Ustinov) 

§ 2, paragraph a) "the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian fully kept the same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles, as our Russian Orthodox Tserkvov. 




Ekkliziologicheskie theses
or
Statement of the doctrine of the Church
for Orthodox opposing the heresy of ecumenism

Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky Cyprian 


1. Church and heresy.

We believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The Church in heaven and the Church on earth - one, even if the latter is named after different places, such as the Church of Galatia, "in Ephesus" or " The Church in Greece. "There is one Lord" of the Orthodox Church - Jesus Christ our Lord. "single faith" in the Church - Orthodoxy divinely inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Councils and Bogonosnyh Fathers. "One Baptism for salvation - Orthodox Baptism in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. "

Orthodox Church as a whole - is infallible and invincible. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", says the Lord Almighty. However, Christians and local churches can err in matters of faith, that is, they may be mentally ill, and sometimes there is a kind of "penetration of disease into the body of the Church", as St.. John Chrysostom. Christians can be divided and within the Church may appear "divisive" as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Local Churches may fall into heresy, as happened with the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the great heresy of Protestantism and the papacy and, eventually, to the heresy of heresies - ecumenism.

Spiritual illnesses are treated within the Church or repentance, or ecclesiastical court. Until the eruption of a heretic, schismatic and a sinner - whether the church or directly by the Lord - view individual believer can not replace the verdict of the Cathedral Church and her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the matter remains unresolved until the Second Coming. As is known, the Church is likened in Scripture field performance of the "wheat and chaff," according to the divine and a church dispensation. Those misguided in a proper understanding of faith in the fact that sins but still untried ecclesiastical court, are the sick members of the Church. Mysteries committed such unconvicted members, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are valid. For example, they are the ordination of God, "as notice of the Cathedral of St. Chair. Tarasius. On the other hand, the possible penalties imposed by the preachers of heresy in the Orthodox opposed to it - are invalid and baseless, according to the teachings of the Church," since the start of their sermons "( that is, from the moment they began to preach heresy), wrote St. Celestine of Rome and adopted the Third Ecumenical Council ..


2. Opposing and unity.

Orthodox Christians have a right based on the Gospel and church canons, detached, that is, to suspend the ecclesial communion and remembrance of the Bishop, who preaches a "heresy prinarodno and bareheaded in church, or one who is accused of what he unrepentant wrong "in matters of piety and righteousness", as stated in th Apostolic Canon, namely, when it acts "against the debt and equity," explains canonist Zonaras. If a bishop or cleric, said SW. John Chrysostom, "Luka in matters of faith, then Run, and reject it if it is not only" man, but even if an angel from heaven. "

The Orthodox, who are separated in such a way, adhering to the sacred canons, not be "canonical punishment." On the contrary, they are worthy of the church "honor", "befitting an Orthodox." They are regarded as worthy Orthodox, because "they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions." This means that "they have their office did not cause a split of the Church, but soon released her from splitting (caused by pseudo-bishops) as it depended on them," again explains Zonaras. Those who preach heresy, and the one who brings novelty into the Church, shared her and violated her integrity and unity. Those who oppose the heretical preaching or separated from it, strives to save the integrity and unity of the Church. The purpose of the confrontation and separation - the fight against heresy, the protection of the Orthodox faith and preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church, that is Orthodoxy itself.


3. Separation of the Church due to ecumenism.

Today the Church in Greece, unfortunately, divided and sick. In 1924, the dark forces divided it by innovation trinadtsatidnevnogo change festive calendar. This move resembles the emergence of the iconoclastic heresy. Iconoclastic heresy first showed itself as a failure. of the holy icons. However, this refers to not only the veneration of icons, but there was a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation. "It was, indeed," very godless and fundamental alteration ", described it as a prep. Theodore. Also a modern innovation in the festive calendar is presented as innocent chronological change. However, this is the beginning and a clear expression and manifestation of the heresy of ecumenism. This change is not just a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but innovation is ecumenical, Orthodox heretics aspirant assimilation and subordination of Orthodoxy heresiarch Antichrist-Pope. It concludes in themselves "the overthrow of all, and ultimately, the adoption of the Antichrist," writes the same teacher. mihiyskoy Theodore of heresy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, rejects God's law.

Due to innovations in the festive calendar, the Orthodox were divided into two parts: the sick in faith and health; to Renovationists and opposing, to the followers of innovation, as well conscious of our ignorance, and to oppose that separate themselves from heresy to defend Orthodoxy. These latter are the champions of the association "separated", that is, for the unity of the Orthodox Church as the Seventh Ecumenical Council refers to those who are separated for these reasons.
Followers of innovations in the calendar has not yet been convicted as such, it vsetserkovno, as is customary in Orthodoxy.

Writes St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, the offender is convicted of the existing rules only when it has already been tried "the second person, that is the cathedral." Novostilniki subject to the court since 1924 and should be judged on the basis of the Holy Council, as the local and universal, and in particular on the basis of religious orders of the sixteenth century, against the then Pope's proposals for reform of the festive calendar. Therefore, those who are separated from novostilnikov actually interrupt ecclesial communion "of the cathedral before the court, as prescribed in Rule 15-m double-Cathedral. So novostilniki has not yet been convicted. Consequently, their sacraments are valid, but the penalties imposed by them on opposing - invalid and baseless. In addition, their repentance and restoration of Orthodoxy - easily, if only they themselves wish this blessed return.


4. Repentance and return.

Each member novostilnoy Church in Greece may be resisting ecumenical innovation. This can be realized through repentance, as it always happened in Orthodoxy. We read in the minutes of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as some bishops said: "We all have sinned, we all ask for forgiveness." "And rising, a pious bishop Juvenal with them crossed to the other side", ie the side of the Orthodox. "And the representatives of the East, together with their pious bishops exclaimed: Welcome, Orthodox, verily, God brought you!". Thus, through repentance and the transition they were taken to Orthodoxy. We see a similar return and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. St. Tarasov, Chairman of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, tells us that "most" of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council "were ordained" heretics, namely, "the leaders monofelitskoy heresy." But the same passage, they were taken to Orthodoxy.

Return to Orthodoxy may also be realized through the formal renunciation of heresy. St Meletii Antioch was ordained by heretics who were called "new heretics" because they had not yet been convicted. However, as he said in his speech at the inauguration supported Orthodoxy, he became head of the Orthodox of Antioch in the later became Chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, it was adopted by the Orthodox confession and preaching of the Orthodox faith. The same thing happened later. The Seventh Ecumenical Council recalls the relevant episode of "scenes from the life of our father St. Sava. It explores how mentors monks, saints Sawa and Theodosius, with his monks, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem who had previously agreed with the arch-heretic North - after the archbishop referred to verbally renounce heresy. At the same council leader of the iconoclastic heresy Business center, Vosstaniya was accepted to participate in the cathedral through the examination of his beliefs and his written denial of this great heresy.

Orthodox tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church teaches us that the sick in faith members divided the Church of Greece may be taken by one of the above ways of repentance and return to the ranks of Orthodoxy, because they are not condemned as heretics or schismatics, and members of the Church had not yet given to court. The adoption of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, the pious judgment Orthodox bishop, who acts according to God, or his confessor. Believers need to take these God blessed the pastors of God as the path to perfection, according to the will of Jesus Christ our Savior, "who all man hoschet be saved in the mind of the truth Priit" and the divine commandment, which states: "iznemogayuschago in the same verve acceptable, not in doubt thoughts. "All of you," writes St. Ignatius of Antioch, "go to the footprint of the Orthodox bishop and priests. Because "that he approves of, and also want God."


5. To the Cathedral of association.

Since the Church of Greece today is divided, the Holy Cathedral Church of Greece united in the form in which it existed before the innovation of 1924, can not be convened. As it has always been in the Orthodox Church, the convening of such a council
would be possible only when separated will unite in Orthodoxy.

During the dominance iconoclast heresy, for example, it was impossible to convene the Orthodox Cathedral of the Church. Only when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, in the year, was convened by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Association. The same Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the words of the Holy Fathers declared that he held "to split" differences to reconcile, and to remove the barrier of hostility, and to restore the priority of the original precepts Catholic (Orthodox) church. "In other words, it was held in order to disparate parts of the Church - then divided by the iconoclasts, dissenters from the Orthodox faith, Orthodox, opposed iconoclast heresy - were united in harmony within Orthodoxy. In this way, it is through the consent of Orthodoxy Church United Church of Greece can be convened as the Cathedral of the association "separated" followers of the ecumenical innovation and opposing it.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Holy Synod of the Church of Greece" is not a united Synod of the Church of Greece. This synod, deviating in innovation, was at odds with the Church. His actions and decisions in favor of changing the calendar and the papal ecumenism - and indeed the heresy of ecumenism - put him clearly in the category of ancient cathedrals, who sympathized with heretics, or were themselves heretical. These churches were going to convene the ecumenical councils, such as the iconoclastic council of 754, was convened to innovation iconoclastic heresy and condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

But the Holy Synod of the opposing innovation in the festive calendar and ecumenism, too, do not constitute a joint council of the Orthodox Church in Greece. According to the Gospel and the canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the separation and the struggle against heresy by the Orthodox opposed to it, is aimed at preserving the unity of the Church's faith, and the union split the Church of Greece by uniting the council. As already mentioned, they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions, "Therefore, until such a Council is only expected association and still be held in the future, now struggles to exploit the Orthodox opposition . The existence of different synods oppose - a sign of the good fight and struggle for faith. They should therefore be considered as groups and gatherings of bishops, who represent the spirit of the Orthodox opposition to heresy in favor of Orthodoxy and for the sake of the unity of the Church.


6. Need Orthodox opposition.

By the first requires no administrative organization opposed to innovation, as if they alone form a united Church of Greece, but the need is the struggle against the Orthodox heresy, according to the deeds and teachings of saints of the past. "We need a great fight and the law," said St. Basil the Great in times similar to our. "Indeed, we need a great struggle according to the evangelical and canonical law, the acts of saints and the just state law.

Each combines an ecumenical council of the Church was the fruit of the sacred struggle of Orthodox, who opposed the heresy. First Ecumenical Council was held as a result of righteous struggle for the faith, mainly Sts. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, the Second Ecumenical Council - Ss. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Third Ecumenical Council took place thanks to the efforts, first, Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Celestine of Rome. Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils were convened by the efforts of the Orthodox, who, without sparing himself, fought for the Orthodox faith "even unto death." The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held by the struggle, above all, teacher. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius "The Seventh Ecumenical Council was the result of efforts, in particular teacher. John of Damascus and other saints.

And today, we would come to the Orthodox Cathedral of the divides of the Church in Greece, by imitating the saints and the heroic fighters of the Orthodox Church, which preceded us. This requires: Orthodoxy, Fathers' rationale; standoff following the example of the saints, and cooperation between the opposing in the Orthodox faith and love of truth, "says the Apostle Paul, the struggle against the innovations in the calendar, and generally against the heresy of heresies - ecumenism. The fight must be persistent, the legal and until his death. For the LORD said, a single, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ: "Blessed be faithful even unto death, and give ti crown belly"

+ Cyprian, 
Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky, 
Chairman of the Synod of Resistance 
(True Orthodox Christians in Greece).
Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece. 1993

Translated from the Greek

Epistle to Cyprianites‏

Epistle to Cyprianites‏
From:
O Ekklisiastikos (ekklisiastikos@gmail.com)

Sent:
Mon 10/19/09 2:06 PM
To:
joannahigginbotham@live.com

http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/epistle-to-cyprianites.html

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
this is a letter to Cyprianites written by the editorial team of the website http://www.ekklisiastikos.com  as a responce to their announcement of the cessation of informal dialogue between their community and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. If you consider the letter important and if you will you may publish it.
 
Yours,
--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

St. Pelagia

Dear Ekklisiastikos,

Thank you for thinking to send this to R0C0R Refugees. You might know that I have a satelite blog devoted to "Cyprianism" in an effort to understand this issue.

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/

I pretty much ended my searchings into this matter after visiting the SIR monastery in Etna last March. For all the criticisms against the SIR, for all the accusations of their being heretics and schismatics, for all the canons and quotes of saints, all the pages and pages of intellectual logic proving their gracelessness, -- how do we explain that they do in fact have grace?

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/03/sir-does-too-have-grace.html

Grace is there. It is there where, according to the anti-Cyprianites, it can not be. It is there in the SIR monastery in Etna so thick you can cut it with a knife. The only conclusion I can come to is there has to be something faulty with the anti-Cyprianite reasoning. Just what the error is I could never hope to figure out, that is for somebody smarter than I.

The only other possibility I can imagine is that I'm in prelest - that I mistake a demonic illusion for God's grace. If that is so, then also the grace at my baptism was a demonic illusion, and 0rthodoxy is a trick and not the true faith. That possibility is too absurd to consider.

So, the issue is pretty dead for me, but I will post the invitation to your website for those who wish to look into it further.

In Christ,
Joanna Higginbotham

∞∞∞
WARNING:
I've been advised to be clear to our readers that R0C0R Refugees blog does not recommend the ekklisiastikos.com website or studying these types of materials [about grace, heretics, canonicity] written by the super-correct since it can lead away from the Royal Path.

Sticky

HA! See this!
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/06/letters-to-troubled-monastic.html

Thank Dear Heaven! I do not have to hear any more about who has grace and who does not have grace!

Miracle In Moscow

(No matter how this miracle is interpreted, it manifested first in the private home of a servant of God in the MP in 1998. Considering this, it shows us the Royal Path regarding how we should view the MP. -jh)

MIRACLE IN MOSCOW

Just as the end of 1997 was wrought with a multitude of ominous and somber signs: the murder of Brother Jose Munoz, the disappearance of the wonder-working, myrrh-streaming icon of the Iverskaya Mother of God, the murder of Fr. Alexander Zharkov, the fire in the Synodal cathedral in Montreal, - so also did the culmination of this past year (1998) become a time of miracles of Divine consolation. On November 10th, the incorrupt remains of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenkskii) - the third of the First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - were discovered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. Just three days prior to that, an ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr Nicholas II began to exude myrrh in Moscow, Russia.

***
What is particularly significant about the manifestation of this particular icon is that it was presented as a gift to a devout woman, Alla Dyakova, on October 30th, the anniversary of Brother Jose's murder.

As Anna Dyakova related to Elena Yugina, a correspondent for ITAR-TASS, the miracle occurred on November 7th, the annual anniversary of the Bolshevik revolt, which brought a regime of theomachists and regicides to power over a Russia that had turned away from her Tsar'. The servant of God, Alla, pondered on the fact that now (and this, despite the collapse of the communist regime) there are still demonstrators carrying red flags along the streets of Moscow - flags from which streams the blood of millions of New Martyrs. This very bloodshed was itself a sign of Divine wrath on account of sin - of Divine wrath called forth by Russia's falling away from God's Anointed One, from God Himself, and from obedience to the Orthodox Church. On bended knee, and with a heart contrite, Alla offered up a tearful prayer unto the Lord, that He might forgive Russia the sin of regicide. It was precisely then that the miracle took place - the icon began to exude myrrh. And from that moment on, on a daily basis and contrary to all the laws of physics, sweetly fragrant, amber-colored myrrh has been flowing along the face of the icon - not downwards, as would normally be expected, but from its four sides toward its center: toward that spot where the Tsar-Martyr is depicted.

The myrrh-streaming ikon was transferred to the Moscow Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field (Radio St., House 2), which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. It was in this cathedral that at one time there was preserved a venerable copy of the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God - the Protectress of the House of the Romanovs. The dean of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasilii Golovanov, immediately placed the miracle-working icon on an analoi so that hundreds of believing pilgrims from the entire could venerate it. According to the dean's testimony, the icon exudes myrrh almost daily, and the fragrance becomes particularly strong during periods of panikhidas for the Czar-Martyr. (The faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate who venerate the Czar-Martyr serve panikhidas for him, as the MP has not canonized him.)

Protopriest Vasilii himself is of the opinion that the myrrh-streaming of the ikon speaks of the approach of the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia, so much anticipated, and hoped for, by so many. [In fact, the holy and right-believing Tsar-Martyr is already glorified; one can speak only of the recognition of the undeniable fact of his sanctity by the Moscow Patriarchate.] The more so, as the inscription on the ikon states: "This holy Ikon hath been painted for the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia."

"The commencement of the miracle-working on the fatal day of the October revolt," Protopriest Vasilii says, "is a sign of the fact that the Russian people have been forgiven for their apostasy from God." He feels that we are eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of St. John of Shanghai, who said: "If our hopes and prayers will be strong, the Lord will empower the prayer of the Tsar-Martyr, of Tsarevich Aleksii, and of the Royal Women Martyrs; and they will shine forth as a radiant dawn over our Fatherland, then washed clean by tears of repentance and by the blood of martyrs."

***
The myrrh-streaming of the ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has become a matter of world news. All of the major information agencies, from ITAR-TASS to Reuters, have reported on the miracle in detail in their communiqués. This most certainly is a unique occurrence in the history of the world's mass media over the past several decades. However, even this apparently fails to persuade those whose hearts have grown shamelessly callous in their opposition to God. Opposition to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs has become the traditional stance of the Moscow Patriarchate's ecclesiastical policy, a line that is adhered to with astonishing consistency and conviction despite the fact that as a result of such "hard-headedness" the hierarchy of the MP suffers significant moral damage. Neither the great numbers of miracles on the part of the Royal Martyrs - the myrrh-streaming and fragrance of their icons, and the healings, - nor their universal veneration throughout the MP itself, nor the position of the government, which was expressed in the rendering of dubious honors to the last Emperor by interring the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, have convinced the (Moscow) Patriarchate to take any kind of measures toward their canonization. This opposition in principle to the glorification of the Tsar' can only evoke astonishment when it is viewed in light of that "flexibility" wherewith the MP has frequently exhibited its position in other circumstances.

The hierarchs of the MP have used the classical method of eluding and obscuring the significance of these events in order once again to drown the current wave of spiritual revival in a morass of bureaucracy and conformity. Patriarch Aleksii II, as unofficial sources report, has given the order not to take the ikon anywhere outside the cathedral, and to report in advance to him all coming activities connected with it. The very fact that the dean resolved to place the ikon upon an analoi is already being interpreted by many parishioners as a "courageous action" on his part.

On January 30th, the superintendent of churches was present briefly in the Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field; and, at a general meeting, he issued an order in the presence of the parishioners that the ikon be removed to the altar (although it is true that he did permit it to be brought out occasionally for the veneration of the faithful). Having kept the ikon on its analoi for several more days, the dean finally submitted to the administrative directive and the ikon is now in the altar, being brought out only during the panikhidas served for the Tsar-Martyr. The panikhidas take place daily, at 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those days on which there is an All-night Vigil.

***
What is the significance of this miracle for us? First of all, it bears witness once more time to the fact that the Lord has already glorified the Tsar-Martyr in the Heavens. The faithful sons and daughters of the ROCOR have no need of proofs of the holiness of the Emperor and His Family, which was borne witness to by ROCOR's glorification in 1981. The hierarchs of the ROCOR, then headed by Metropolitan Philaret, were not dismayed by that wave of hatred and slander against the Royal Martyrs which welled up among the emigres and, even more so, in the soviet press. The "haste" displayed at that time was nothing other than spiritual wisdom (as is evident now); and the universal veneration of the Royal Martyrs bears witness most convincingly of all to the truth of the decision made at that time, a decision which nourishes and strengthens this veneration in many.

All the declarations of the Moscow Patriarchate about a need for some sort of investigations (investigations in the course of which slanders refuted decades ago are examined, and re-examined, and then examined again), all its declarations about a need to turn the process of canonization into a public court procedure, in accordance with the mediaeval Roman Catholic model (one in which each and every blasphemer of the Emperor's memory can evoke the applause of a certain part of society), all must conceal one simple fact: that of the Moscow Patriarchate's obstinate desire simply not to join with the voice of the Church of Russia, as this was expressed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and thus, de facto, to cut itself off from the one Body of the Russian Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of the MP has set itself up as judge over both the Russian Church and the Tsar-Martyr, manifesting an almost sectarian willfulness and pride in this matter. One would expect that the higher clergy of the MP would yet again "adapt to the situation," rejecting Sergianism, glorifying the New Martyrs, and taking a firm, Orthodox position in church matters, thus not only preserving, but also multiplying their assets at the expense of those who suppose that the barrier between the MP and our Church is only one of discipline and practice, and not one of Grace... However, it appears that the hierarchs of the MP are mightily bound by someone or by something so that their stubbornness sometimes manifests itself, even despite its being to their advantage to do otherwise. This bears witness yet once again to the fact that the question of belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is not simply one of jurisdiction, but one of a definite and sufficiently clear complex set of views in which there is not, nor can there be, any place found for the canonization of the New Martyrs... Hence, the sons and daughters of our Church Abroad should neither be dismayed, nor come to false conclusions on the basis of the fact that the miracle-working ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr happened to appear in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Lord imparts His wonders not just as a consolation to all the faithful; but also as a dread sign to infidels, in order that the minds of those who oppose the Grace of God might be edified by the miracle.

To those who criticized and denounced the firm and strictly ecclesiastical spirit which was connected with the name of our First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, to those who called the years of his primacy "a time of stagnation," the proof of his undoubted sanctity has now been manifested. It was made apparent at that very same time when, among some of our pastors and members of our flock, there arose doubts as to the rightness of this course, and even the temptation to cast themselves into the deceptively open embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Now, as if to try everyone's faith, of the faithful and hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, the myrrh-streaming ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has appeared. The fruits of this faith have been made immediately apparent by the persecution that was unleashed against this miracle-working ikon.

The Tsar-Martyr has become, de facto, a sign of stumbling for our people. The refusal to glorify Him, the disputes that seethe impiously around his name, bear witness to the fact that the Sin of Regicide continues to weigh heavily upon our people. How mistaken are those who claim that it is absurd to speak of the necessity for national repentance, as no one should have to repent for the sins of one's fathers. Regicide is not the sin of our fathers. It is our sin. Its essence was remarkably expressed by St. John of Shanghai, who stated in one of his sermons that,

"All those have sinned against him (the Tsar-Martyr) and against Russia who, in one way or another, either moved against him; or who did not oppose this action; or who, even out of sympathy with it, thus took part (vicariously) in that event which occurred many years ago. This sin lies upon all, until that time when it is washed away by genuine and sincere repentance."

How many there are yet in Russia of those who labor tirelessly to blacken the memory of the Tsar-Martyr, sparing no efforts to prevent his universal glorification! How many there are in our midst who, on more than one occasion, have spoken sympathetically of this regicide, repeating fables about "Bloody Nicholas" and unfounded gossip concerning Rasputin, exclaiming: "What kind of saint was the Czar'?!" Even amongst today's zealous defenders of the veneration of the Tsar'-Martyr there are not a few who for years had to scrour away their former blasphemously contemptible and narrow-minded prejudices. And who among us has not sinned through treacherous silence when we listened to the slander poured out against the Royal Martyrs and did nothing to silence lying lips with the word of truth. We must not be deceived, regicide is a fearsome sin, one which, as before, continues to weigh heavily upon our people. It is only through sincere and tearful repentance that we can shake off its burden. If a penitential prayer for the forgiveness of her sins, offered up by one, single, devout woman, had as its consequence the manifestation of a myrrh-streaming ikon, then the repentance of each and every one of us is not pointless, but something laden with great significance, and something that, through the prayers of holy Czar'-Martyr Nicholas, will not remain fruitless before God.

O Holy Right-believing Czar-Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us sinners!

source: Orthodox Life (Jordanville) Jan-Feb 1999
Translated into English by G. Spruksts from an abridged Russian text appearing in Vertograd-Inform No. 1 (46). Edited by Holy Trinity Monastery

An online photo of the icon:
http://www.albanyrocor.org/miracle.html